The Council of Constantinople Under Nectarius

In the consulship of our most religious emperors, beloved of God, Flavius Arcadius Augustus, for the third time, and Honorius, for the second time, on the third day before the Calends of October, in the baptistery of the most holy church of Constantinople, when the most holy bishops had taken their seats (their names follow in the record), Nectarius, the bishop of Constantinople, said: “Since by the grace of God this synod has met in this holy place, if the synod of my holy brothers and fellow ministers in holy things thinks it good: I see that our brothers Bagadius and Agapius, who are contending with each other over the bishopric of Bostra, are also present. Let them begin to set out their rights against each other.” Some things were done by them in this cause, and it was shown that Bagadius, already named, had been deposed by only two bishops, both of whom were now dead. Then Arabianus, bishop of Ancyra, said: “Not because of this judgment, but because I am afraid from now on, for the whole of my life, I ask the holy synod to make a decree on whether or not a bishop can be deposed by only two bishops, and whether the metropolitan is absent or not, without prejudice to the present case. For I fear that some, taking license from these proceedings, may dare to attempt such things. So I wish for your answer.” [a]

Nectarius, the bishop of Constantinople, said: “The most religious bishop Arabianus has spoken most commendably. But since it is impossible to go back over a judgment, let us, without condemning what is past, settle things for the future.” Arabianus, bishop of Ancyra, said: “The synod of the blessed fathers who met at Nicaea condemns what has taken place, for it orders that no fewer than three shall ordain, and not even they without the metropolitan. But I have raised this question, full of fear, about the future. So I would wish you to say clearly, without delay or doubt, that according to the decree of the synod of Nicaea a bishop could not lawfully be ordained or deposed by two men.” [d]

After some further debate, Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, said: “No sentence of indignation can be pronounced against those who have departed, since those who would be condemned are not present. But if anyone were to consider those who are to be deposed in the future, it seems to me that not only these ought to assemble, but, as far as possible, all the other bishops of the province as well, so that by the sentence of many a more accurate condemnation may be passed on the one who is present, is being judged, and deserves deposition.” Nectarius, the bishop of Constantinople, said: “Since the controversy concerns lawful institutions and decrees, it follows that nothing must be decreed on account of personal causes. So, as the most holy bishop Arabianus has said, wishing to make the future certain, the sentence of the most holy bishop Theophilus has consistently and carefully decreed that from now on it shall not be lawful even for three bishops, far less for two, to depose one who is examined as a defendant, but only by the sentence of the larger synod and of the bishops of the province, according to the Apostolic Canons.” Flavian, the bishop of Antioch, said: “What the most holy bishop Nectarius and the most holy bishop Theophilus have set out is clearly right.” And all the clergy agreed with this. [e]